 Good morning, good morning and Thank you all for being here I'm Princeton Lyman. I'm a senior advisor to Nancy Lynn Boyd the president of the Institute of Peace and Welcome to this to the Institute Let me just say a word about the US Institute of Peace in case you're not familiar with it It's an independent government agency created. I should know but a good 20 30 years ago and dedicated to the cause of the prevention or containment of Conflict and that piece is possible The Institute has programs In almost all parts of the world in Africa the Middle East in Asia and has a major training program Through our Academy that trains people around the world in conflict prevention. So welcome And now let me welcome you also to this conference atrocity prevention in the 21st century yes, I have For it looked like a three and I thought you would be very far ahead But now the 20th and let me have a special thanks to our co-host the embassy of this embassy of Switzerland And the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance So it's quit Switzerland currently serves as a chair of the Alliance. So we're pleased to have their support today Let me again give a plug about the US Institute of Peace because we have a long-standing program in this area most note note note worthy I Didn't have enough coffee or water this morning Well, it's nose will know where there was our involvement in the gentrified prevention task force an initiative in partnership With the American Academy of Diplomacy and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Which is represented here today The task force you may recall was co-chaired by the former secretary Madeleine Albright and Bill Cohen and its report remains one of the most Impactful policy blueprints the Institute has ever produced our engagement in this field has become more Geographically oriented as I mentioned over the years We are now engaged in Myanmar Central Africa Republic and Sudan Just to name a few of the locations where we are doing this kind of work now I'm gonna Make some more remarks if I go off what is it go off? Message Jonas you Proof Along me Because I'm glad that in the way we've set up this conference that we are not going back to never again. I Say that because there will be again this again None of the issues that have been raised in the Middle East in the Arab Spring have been resolved Extremists are raising tensions in a country like Bangladesh That has a history of extreme violence in Africa. There are many potential Areas of new atrocities even as we have ongoing ones in South Sudan and parts of the DRC So it's good to emphasize prevention Because the more we prevent obviously The greater we have achieved our met our effort But I think we have to look at the fact that we have not been able as an international community to prevent Yemen or South Sudan or Other ongoing tragedies and what we have to realize is that in those situations the politics Overmour rides all the commitments that the nations have nations have made to To prevention and Indeed, I think as you go forward in this conference We have to look not just at the prevention causes But I would challenge you to look at how political forces override those efforts And whether we can understand enough about the potential of political forces That we can develop counters to that that we would understand the politics of the next round of atrocities and Have some counter to that other than calling on the genocide prevention and all of that Otherwise, I fear our voices will be voices in the wilderness And they will not be heard now. I didn't mean to start on such a dystopian But I think that's a factor we must focus on now. Let me please Turn to someone who will not be so dystopian and to introduce the ambassador of Switzerland Ambassador to Sweden To say a few words Thank you very much and welcome again Good morning Ambassador Lyman dear panelists Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very happy to be here among you at the US Institute for Peace And it's a great pleasure for me to welcome you to the third panel Discussion in the context of the current Swiss chairmanship of the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance the topic of Today's panel is preventing atrocities in the 21st century Seven decades after the Holocaust how can the world prevent atrocities? One is tempted to rephrase the question in the title. How much have we really learned since the Holocaust if anything Unfortunately war crimes against humanity genocide and Ethnic cleansing have not stopped with the Holocaust Despite the many efforts despite the many scrutiny we have given to this dark To this dark part of our history. So the question is how Of how we can prevent future atrocities And this will be very much in the center of today's panel Genocide prevention is a key task for the international community the 2000 Stockholm Declaration to which all member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance At here underlines this commitment and I quote from there With humanity still scared by genocide ethnic cleansing racism Antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils and Of quote Switzerland is actively involved in efforts to prevent atrocities. This includes early Identification of potential causes and their elimination in the long term Switzerland works with the United Nations in preventing atrocities Switzerland has also been for example a driving force behind the establishment of the international network global action against mass atrocity crimes and I have also to add that Throughout my diplomatic career the topic has played a role for instance when we had the OSC German shape at the end or towards the end of the Bosnia war or when I was Very much involved with our humanitarian rescue efforts during The war in Kosovo or then later on before this posting when I was the head of the Swiss agency for development cooperation where we dealt a lot this this is the equivalent of USA D where we dealt a lot with war-torned Societies and in all those contexts it is very real and it is something to some extent You only learn to understand if you speak to people To people who were victims and this is something throughout my life I found important to deal with victims, but also to look ahead that no people become Victims anymore. It's perhaps something we will never reach, but it's an effort. We should we should do I would like to thank the US Institute for peace for co-organizing and hosting this event. It is always Good to be here in this wonderful and Important institution and so let me thank the moderator Jonas Klaas and Tonys Montes for their support and The three outstanding panelists for having agreed to join us this morning. Thank you very much Good morning everybody. Good morning tests. Okay My name is Jonas Klaas. I'm a senior program officer here at the US Institute of Peace and I'll be the facilitator of this discussion today I also wanted to share my gratitude to Ambassador Dahinden and his team from the embassy of Switzerland For co-hosting this event as well as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance I think beyond highlighting the importance of atrocity prevention as a policy priority A few days after International Holocaust Remembrance Day. I think this gathering serves two additional objectives first at this point of time with a Relatively new UN Secretary General in place and also relatively new US administration It's important to take stock and of the progress that's been made so far and also to look further back By evaluating the norms institutions and policies that have been put in place over the past few decades on Atrocity prevention and to see how much progress has been made We were very pleased to see that the current US administration has decided to continue its engagements with the atrocities Prevention boards in that UN Secretary General Guterres has emphasized conflict prevention as one of his priorities Even though he has been a little bit less outspoken on atrocity prevention I think secondly This is also a good opportunity to look ahead with our panelists today and Identify some of the ways in which we could make our efforts more effective in this field Do we need new institutions? Do we need new policies or instruments? Instruments for field engagements. So in the next hour and a half more or less We hope to reflect on the effectiveness of prevention mechanisms and our ability to measure success in this peace building Fields the event is streamed online and will be able to be retrieved afterwards on our YouTube channel And you could also follow the conversation online during the events using hashtag Swiss IHRA series At this point, I would like to introduce the panelists of today I'll provide very brief introductions because their bios are available at the entrance Starting with Lawrence Wutcher who's a research director at the Simon Exchewed Center for the prevention of genocides at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and also my former boss here at the USIP Ms. Mowbleaker is a special envoy for dealing with the past and the prevention of atrocities at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Finally, Professor Menachem Rosenshaft who serves as the general counsel of the world Jewish Congress. Welcome to you all Lawrence, let me start with you at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and previously at the USAID and USIP You've made important contributions in helping us conceptualize the field of atrocity prevention And also in trying to help us identify the best Institutional fit for this policy domain. So I hope that in your comments You can also help us clarify what atrocity prevention looks like in practice and maybe offer some thoughts on on what works best Or is yours? Thank you very much Jonas and thanks again to the US Institute of Peace and the Swiss government for convening this conversation The US Holocaust Memorial Museum was founded as a living memorial to the Holocaust And preventing genocide has always been part of the mandate of the institution For almost 25 years now That work is now carried out through the Simon Scott Center for the prevention of genocide through our program of research education and public outreach So given the the title of today's conversation, I thought Actually, we're almost one fifth of the way through the 21st century And it's actually not too early to try and take stock on Where we are and and how the first 18 or almost 18 years now have gone And where things might be headed in the next several So it got me thinking if we had had this conversation 10 years ago And asked the same set of questions I think there would have been quite a lot of cause for optimism in thinking about preventing mass atrocities At that point say in 2008 The prevalence of mass killing events was at the lowest point in 60 years We were at a point where there had been five consecutive years with no new Onsets of state-led mass killing according to the data that we track At the same time, there was a sense of momentum on the normative and political side Particularly through the 2005 adoption of the responsibility to protect at the UN World Summit Of that year And then there were repeated references to the responsibility to protect by the UN Security council and the general assembly In the united states a little closer to home We were I think nearly the apex of the grassroots mobilization that occurred Based on the the tragedy in Darfur in Sudan So many people were Were mobilized were we're calling their members of congress. We're speaking out. We're rallying on the national mall Saying that the united states government should be a leader and be heavily engaged in the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities And later that year the genocide prevention task force, which has already been mentioned would would add a High-level bipartisan stamp behind the prioritization of preventing genocide and mass atrocities And issue this blueprint for how the u.s. Government ought to go about pursuing those tasks Now I think Unfortunately today if we have been on an assessment We have to be a lot less sanguine First there's been a notable uptick in the incidents and prevalence of mass atrocities and mass killings and A number of these have been actually extremely large-scale events Especially Syria stands out among the rest, but Also, South Sudan Burma. They're a number that are really of quite a shocking scale In the last few years Politically, there's been a I think a notable series of challenges and setbacks to the what had appeared to be a steady progress in affirming the responsibility to protect A lot of this is is pinned to the aftermath of the libya intervention But also we have to look at the the complete lack of success of collective action on Syria as Really a damning piece of evidence for the political Consensus on preventing and responding to atrocities In the united states, I think the story is a little more complicated and maybe too early to tell As the owners noted their signs of continuity with the the trump administration continuing to convene the atrocities prevention board Which was an innovation of the obama administration and many if not most thought would would go away With the transition which is quite typical even when they're not You know a change in parties or A sharp change in perspectives we see again the Genocide mass atrocities being referenced in the national security strategy as it has been for for many times in the past But I think more broadly in the united states we see A a more serious debate about the basic questions of how we define our interests and responsibilities around the world And that debate is unresolved and we'll continue I think for the next many many years and we don't really know How it will end up So I think this should give us significant cause for A sober discussion And if we try to make some informed speculation about the future, I think there's some additional reasons for concern Um I'll just highlight three factors that I think Suggest that in the coming years the risk of mass atrocities around the globe is likely to increase At first is the the increase in great power competition Uh, and this especially has a profound effect on the effectiveness of the u.n. Security council, which is as we all know the the principal venue for addressing threats to international peace and security including atrocity crises When the u.n. Security council is is blocked as it has been on syria It makes an effective collective response much much more difficult But on top of that increase great power competition could lead to an increase in in proxy wars And that Raises risks of mass atrocities because we know that atrocities occur Quite frequently in the context of Civil wars, especially those where there there's external intervention on one side or the other or both The second point is really around the normative development Where I think there's reason to be concerned that the Not only the norms around the responsibility to protect but more broadly the the post cold war, excuse me post world war two international human rights Norms are increasingly going to be called into question For their relevance for their effectiveness We have an elaborate system of norms on paper And we have a fairly involved institutional architecture to report and monitor the compliance with those norms And and laws, but I think as we see Uh Some countries just shirk their responsibilities with with very little attempt to even cover up or make excuses People will continue to Increasingly call into question this whole normative architecture And then the third point that gives me great concern looking forward about atrocity risk is the Strains on the international humanitarian and peacekeeping systems These are are two core elements of the international response to crises Of a variety of kinds, but including crises where mass atrocities are committed or threatened And they're both under serious strain now and will be in the future The humanitarian system is challenged by the Increasing volume of demands, but also by the complexity of those situations where humanitarian actors are are thrust into Uh, there are continuing shortfalls in funding, uh, and um situations where The traditional humanitarian principles are fundamentally challenged by the changing nature of the the conflicts and violence around the world Peacekeeping has been an effective way of responding to Civil wars and fragile agreements that have ended internal conflicts Including many which have involved atrocities Peacekeeping operations now routinely have protection of civilian mandates in incorporated into them But we have a strain on the capacity of peacekeeping both at the field level and at headquarters We have a situation as in south sudan, which On the one hand You you had a peacekeeping operation on the ground and yet you had atrocities being committed Despite that Now you could say there's a partial success in as much as the piece Peacekeeping operation opened the gates to the sites and allowed Many civilians to flee there and and find some protection, but more fundamentally. I think it raises the The question of is there a even more profound Tragedy and a peacekeeping operation to come that would really call into question the entire enterprise So to me those there are some some reasons to be Concerned now that concern shouldn't leave it lead us to complacency But to renew our efforts and redouble our our energies. So just finally a couple of words about What atrocity prevention can look like in this evolving and ever more complicated context My main message here I think is to be aware of of reifying this notion of atrocity prevention atrocity prevention is not a A particular Process or a a particular set of tools. It's a goal It's a goal of preventing large-scale and systematic attacks on civilian populations preventing genocide systematic war crimes crimes against humanity ethnic cleansing It's going to look very different in different contexts It's not exclusively the work of states or international organizations It's certainly not exclusively or even principally in many cases of the work of outsiders So we need to think about it in a in that sense that it is a a goal that we Work towards in highly tailored ways depending on the context And therefore I think one implication is the renewed energy around the prevention agenda At the un through the un secretary general and the security council in some recent resolutions Even where that's discussed in fairly vague or expansive terms and not specifically connected to mass atrocities To me, I think that's an important opportunity for the atrocity prevention community to seize on that prevention agenda Even in its expansive fashion Um, so I see no contradiction in a the unique perspective morally legally analytically that comes from focusing on preventing Crimes against humanity genocide and large-scale war crimes And a strategy to try and achieve those goals that involves Trying to build bridges to these other areas That involves expanding beyond the community of people who define themselves as pursuing the prevention of atrocities In fact, I think actually reaching out and trying to collaborate with those broader communities be they peace building conflict prevention transitional justice countering state fragility or the like Actually may be the the most effective way of reaching the road to preventing atrocities Thank you, Lawrence for those helpful observations Next we'll turn it to one of our guests from from switzerland's miss moe bleaker. Welcome to washington A few years ago. We held an event here as well that looked at opportunities for transatlantic cooperation On on atrocity prevention. So in a way your participation here today Offers a very good follow-up to to that activity We'd certainly be interested in learning from you what what the priorities of swiss government Look like in this field and perhaps what what you see as some opportunities for transatlantic engagement in this field. Thank you Thank you very much. Good morning. I'm very pleased to be here actually And also in such honorable company. I in particular have been working also is Lawrence butcher years ago And I do believe it's good to be in community and to think together We think here together because we are worried But we're also working and In this complex time I use I use as a kind of reflex to come back to basics And I would like to to question a little bit together and with you some some vocabulary We are using in order to think About what we do and how we could do it better In in the future So indeed I have a strange title. I'm special envoy for dealing with the past and for preventing atrocities. So it's both geared toward the past but in order to prevent recurrence And geared toward the future in order to better also assess How to honor the victims also And in particular risk at the core of that Prevent any recurrence or prevent any atrocities to happen in the future. So we have been we are talking about atrocities Some argue that there are no legal legally binding definition of of atrocities Let's simply accept that we understand atrocity crimes as comprising genocide crimes against humanity war crimes and cleansing What genocide crimes against humanity and at the cleansing have in common is the fact that They refer to systematic and widespread acts of violence Against populations that may occur either in times of conflict, but but also In times of peace and that's important to remember War crimes on the other hand can only be committed during armed conflict But they do necessary they do not necessarily imply an extensive scale I think these These elements are important And in the context of atrocity prevention the war crimes that are of concern Are those that impact on the protection of human life and that are considered to be committed As part of a large-scale plan or attack against populations So we know that the types of potential atrocities in context in which atrocities may be committed Very greatly from one situation Or the other That in turn tells us that no size fits all and that we have to adapt any strategy of prevention and we will talk to that after The world atrocity crimes is also used by the issued in 2014 united nations framework of analysis Of for atrocity crimes by the special advisors on the prevention of genocide and the responsibility to protect So it has acquired somehow in this last decade a kind of droit de cité As it is now As I was saying some people oppose a term atrocity crimes stating that it's not legally defined But and to come back to what lorenz was saying before and away from an illegal debate that we might have another day Allow me to underline That the more systematic use of the term atrocity crimes Has allowed in the last decade to open a very important space for joint cooperation Above the lines of division or above the lines of non-corporation Between different communities involved in genocide prevention Involved in responsibility to protect Involved in protection of civilians or in international justice or in transitional justice to name only this few Um, it has helped us somehow to overcome the silo practice and politics uh in each of our little Feel and this cooperation in turn has allowed important and positive steps both conceptual and practical To happen in this last decade and I think we pretty much Join together on that So let me now continue and i'm sorry to be so basic, but sometimes it helps to come back to to basic What do we mean by prevention? Prevention entails Sorry, do you hear me still? Yes, okay What falls on the ground can't fall further Prevention consists in a series of measures of or initiatives That shall be taken to avoid any accident to happen any situation to worsen Or any contagious negative dynamic to further develop Prevention is normally realized through limiting the risk with specific measures aiming to suppress Or considerably reduce the probability for such Negative or dangerous events to take place or to reoccur It also has to do with strengthening the societal resilience To developing capacity and predictability namely the strengthening of capacities to Early identify such dangers to die to design timely pertinent risk reduction measures And to implement them Protecting in particular the weakest actors and group in society And when already in risk protecting in particular the weakest actors Limiting the exposure sorry to such risk and events And the gravity of their consequences So we talk a lot about prevention and even if we consider that it's Excellent and very important that the UN secretary general has somehow Taken this on board again with him We might ask ourselves and we were talking about that in the letter room before Are we really presenting when we consider what the words preventing means Actually Prevention should happen before Before these terrible events happen But the reality is what we too often call prevention Happens and reality often when the house is already burning That is when it's too late In many contexts, it's clear that mediation diplomacy cooperation international or transitional justice somehow Have contributed to prevent further degradation of the situation But let's face it when faced with the soon to happen or ongoing atrocities during these last decades the de-united international community to use the expression of yehula bower In particular the security council has not been able to prevent neither Rwanda neither The atrocities in the Balkans Libya, Yemen, Syria And or to avoid the Rohingya tragedy to speak about Very recent event I afraid that we do not have many successful experience of prevention to showcase And I have to say that while Switzerland Has decided years ago that prevention of atrocity shall be high on the agenda It has given me the possibility during 10 years actually To work on this subject matter And in this context, I have witnessed indeed many failures And some successful small steps important enough to be named And this lead me to my first conclusion that If we really wish to effectively prevent atrocities Namely using these terms we would need a real change of paradigm And if you allow me I would like to share some of this Basics element of what this shift of paradigm shall mean First I believe that prevention to be effective shall be understood as a permanent endeavor It's now Called upon when tragedy is already ongoing So a permanent endeavor that shall be enshrined in national policy agenda budget and institutional Architecture the very same that public health systems have prevention enshrined in their continuous and permanent policy For this to happen, of course There is a need of a common understanding of what needs to be prevented How to prevent it and who enforces prevention In turn this kind of conversation and discussion debate And consensus building could also become a unique opportunity to generate not only consensus But we force fundamental values Around which we would gather around this subject. Let me give you an example The excellent ambassador Moulin Moulin from Tanzania Who has been a key figure of the international conference of the great lake region Notably its memorandum for the prevention of genocide Has been insisting on the fact that this Memorandum of understanding signed by 12 states in this region has allowed them to pass and I quote her From non interference to non indifference Sounds small, but it's hugely different So this passing from non interference to non indifference has led to a series Of initiative to be taken national committees have been created That communicate with other national committees a series of indicators and measures have been decided upon That are shared In the regions through these 12 countries And when it goes wrong and we know it goes wrong In some of these contexts diplomatic channels are open Based on this voluntary Commitment to talk to express worries to pressure to correct to help and support Before condemning in other words This permanence of the structure and this decision to be engaged on a permanent basis offers room of maneuver And allows a diversification of means of means used to mitigate the risk Another element Is prevention to become effective needs to be domesticated Local actors shall be sitting in the driving seat Domestic policies in architecture shall be history culture sensitive and aimed to Strengthening the resilient capacities of the society Furthermore, and it's evident Solutions are multi sectorial So therefore cooperation between state and civil society at all levels Lies at the core of the successful prevention The domestication of prevention is a key to this success And in turn again, it can also become the opportunity for a new international cooperation agenda bottom up That leads to my third point prevention is by nature an agenda of cooperation and not an agenda of imposition In this globalized world as we said and laurence underlined it very well Sweats are interconnected and no society is immune So while prevention is being domesticated and nationally based It needs a framework of cooperation to be fully effective globally It implies again a long-term permanent cooperation agenda Based on fundamental consensus About again what needs to be prevented who are the legitimate actors to do so And what are the credible meaningful and legitimate means to prevent Developing again a consensus about this extremely challenging, but again It can become an extraordinary opportunity for the community of nations In another way to say it would be could we turn the issue of prevention in a positive agenda The fourth point would be The prevention in action can indeed contribute to strengths and democratic values Prevention policy in architecture to be effective Shell and tail and we know about that early understanding of what is at stake Early agreements on indicators related to the past that leads to atrocities early decisions And early actions and early cooperation at all levels Said in other words prevention strategies shall aim to empower societies To manage conflict constructively and politically To increase resilience to enhance social political and economic inclusion And to provide safety and security for all In this context for example part of early elements of prevention of atrocity Is the prevention of discrimination on particular grounds race religion belief sexual orientation The prevention of incitements or hate speech at a very early stage The prevention of revisionism, of course These are issues about which it's of particular importance to generate consensus in each of our societies and not only in the other society or in the societies of others On another note in the aftermath of a conflict the prevention of the recurrence forces the strengthening of national Actings according to rule of law and this is central These institutions are again key to any democratic system. What I want to say here is that Prevention as a permanent endeavor goes hand by hand With the strengthening and deepening of democracy and in that sense It's can be seen and it should be handled. I think more and more as a constructive agenda In my last element for this Shift of paradigm would be The regional agendas for prevention of atrocities are key to address issue In complementarity with the un Whether prevention action is taken in the realm of the conflict Violence disaster or pandemics An effective response always begins with an analysis of risk Followed by upstream structural or systemic action This can be done. Well only in advance of a potential crisis emerging So for example strengthening institutions or addressing exclusion In that framework national and international Can and shall be built incrementally While ongoing permanent structural and systemic prevention can be implemented in relation to rising Or immediate risk through early warning and early action So the multiplication of domestic architecture and mechanism shall be completed By regional and international cooperation Prevention in that sense can only be effective when Complementarity is in action and national architecture regional cooperation Can and will lead and turn to a better cooperation with and hopefully within the un These are For me a little bit the five preliminary elements of this paradigm shift Shift and I hope we can discuss about it later and to end I would like to Share with you about the creation of the global alliance against mass atrocity crimes gamak With a platform of prevention This is Very much inspired I would say By this paradigm shift a community of commitment that actually switzerland is sharing And this platform created in 2013 is a joint effort with argentina costa rica danmark switzerland and tanzania With the support of the genocide advisory network japanet The global center for r2p The international coalition for r2p The françois xavibre new center for halls and human rights at harvard university And the school of diplomacy and international relations at saturn hall university Several high-level personalities and of course the office of adam adiang and simonovic From the un Is strongly associated to this initiative gamak is uh, and that's my answer to your question about transatlantic cooperation gamak is a global inclusive state-led voluntary network of partners That support are interested in or are involved in atrocity prevention. We have chosen To have a very low threshold Of Entrance in this community whoever and whoever state is interested in or Involved in atrocity prevention can enter and can begin cooperating With us it intends to support state That wish to develop national architecture for the prevention of atrocity Crimes in collaboration With other atrocity prevention initiatives networks and actors. So again, it's in complementarity With other processes that are ongoing gamak provides an open and global platform We meet every two years. We have an extensive Networking capacity and the possibility to provide expertise and exchange from the south to the north and out to the change For the next example, switzerland will have to make its own homework. Namely will begin to design its own national strategy for prevention of atrocity and I'm sure that in this case it will be helped by the countries who already have this kind of structure Among them some of them coming from the international Great lake conference region namely Tanzania And other countries will help us doing so For switzerland and I will close with this our commitment around the international holocaust remembrance alliance And our commitment in the creation of gamma goes hand by hand By dealing with the past we seek to honor the victims and contribute to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities And by entering engaging in other creation of an initiative such as gamak And the design of our own architecture of prevention of atrocity We honor the victims of past atrocities We recognize that non-state is immune and we seek to prevent forthcoming crisis In atrocities in a nutshell I understand gamak as a community of commitment That tries to already implement this paradigm shift And therefore engage in the creation of national permanent architecture and policy Supported by regional cooperation and in turn trying to influence the multilateral agenda in the un In may 2018 gamak will convene its third global meeting open to any state An organization who wish to engage in this cooperative effort with the view to generate This global architecture. I can only invite you to check under wwgamaak.org And I thank you for your attention Thank you miss bleaker for those observations Finally we go to professor rosensoft a special Welcome to you as well. I think your participation will allow us to go back to the foundations of this field in some regard As you teach on the law of genocide and war crimes trials. Look forward to your presentation. Thank you Do you mind if I do it for a standing does anybody mind or Perhaps I think because we'll be double-miked All right, if you don't mind. Well, thank you very much honor to be here ambassador lineman ambassador dahin jinn My friend dr. Geisbühle Mr. Klaas I'm honored to be here As you mentioned, it's a bit daunting to speak of the third speaker on a panel on which Much if not all that can be said about prevention has pretty much been said And so with your permission, I'd like to as Mention go back in time a little bit In terms of how we got here Precisely 72 years ago today on january 30th 1946 Shaljibu the deputy chief prosecutor for the french republic before the international military tribunal at nuremberg Read into the record a document dated february 14th 1944 From herman gehring to hainrich hainrich himmle that read in relevant part And i'm quoting dea himmler I ask you to keep at my disposal for air force armament the greatest possible number of kz cut set prisoners the Initials kz as we know stood for concentrations lager that means concentration camp I continue quoting Experience has so far shown that this labor can be put to very good use The situation of the war in the air necessitates the situation of the war in the air necessitates the transfer of this industry To underground workshops in such workshops work and housing can be particularly well combined for cut set prisoners End quote debo went on to explain that the facilities to which gehring referred included the dora middle about tunnels or caverns Dug into the harz mountain some five kilometers from the city of north house and southern germany Where the v2 rockets were being manufactured The previous day on january 29th alfred balashovski the head of the A laboratory at the postur institute in paris Had told the tribunal what dora had been like when he had arrived there in february of 1944 Where what he called a social criminals who had been put in charge by the ss quote Beat us from morning till night We got up at four o'clock in the morning and had to be ready within five minutes in the underground dormitories Where we were crammed without ventilation and foul air In blocks about as large as this room into which 3000 to 3500 interneed were crowded There were five tiers of bunks with rotting straw mattresses Fresh ones were never issued We were given five minutes in which to get up for we went to bed completely dressed We were hardly able to get any sleep for there were the continuous coming and going Furthermore, it was impossible to sleep because we were covered with lice The whole dora camps warmed with vermin. It was virtually impossible to get rid of the lice In five minutes. We had to be in line in the tunnel and march to a given place Referring to the gearing himla communication on january 30th 1946 Dubot told the tribunal and again, I quote We know Then who was responsible for the frightful condition which the deportee the dora had to endure The person responsible that is gearing it in the dock end quote I happen to have a personal interest in balashovsky's testimony in the gearing to himla communication My father arrived at dora on february 11th 1945 and were the prisoner there until early april When he was taken to bergen belzin less than two weeks before liberation He came to dora wearing a uniform with a special red circle The so-called fluchpunkt identifying him as an skp After more than six months of torture in the notorious block 11 at auschwitz And a brief two-month respite at the langenzadza concentration camp My father used to say that dora was even worse in auschwitz Why is any of this relevant today Because 73 years ago There was little reason to believe that those responsible for auschwitz dora and bergen belzin For treblinka maydanik sobibor and all the other site where millions of jews were murdered as part of the hitlerite final solution of the jewish question Would ever be brought to justice Certainly there was no precedent for holding a herman gearing or a hunt franc or an albert spare accountable for acts Many of them atrocities perpetrated within the governmental framework of the surdreich We have come a long way in the 72 and a half years since the end of world war two From the vanted point of 2018 we have not only the international military tribunal and its charter in our rearview mirror But also the subsequent american urmberg trials the convention and the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide The international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia and rwanda And the rome statuette establishing the international criminal court Still It behooves us to bear in mind that international criminal human rights law is in its jurisprudential infancy The recent genocide convention of ratglom ladic by the ic ty Serve to remind us that less than a quarter century ago Government officials still sought that they could and would get away with brutal mass killings of civilians Based on their national religious racial or ethnic identity Let us be perfectly clear on january 27th 1945 when auschwitz was liberated And on may 8th 1945 v e day when world war two in europe came to an end There was no basis in accepted international law for prosecuting the perpetrators of what we now call the holocaust Nor were there a forum where they could be brought to justice As things stood on those two dates arbitrary vengeance vigilantes style or otherwise Or reliance on domestic courts where the conventional alternative For not allowing the murderers of european jury to get away with it as it were more over The nazi leadership in berlin as well as the concentration camp personnel on the ground Still had available to them at least in syria three affirmative defenses one What they did was legal under the laws of the surdreich or as promulgated in the countries occupied by nazi germany Two they could claim immunity as government officials And three they were obeying and complying with the orders of their superiors By august 8th 1945 when representative of the united states the united kingdom the ussr and france Formally approved the charter for the imt International criminal law were dramatically and as it turned out permanently transformed A mechanism albeit a short-lived temporary one was established for bringing nazi war criminals to justice A brand new cause of action for crimes against humanity was created With a provision of the charter applying retroactively Government leaders and officials would not enjoy immunity for their actions And that the defense of superior orders was barred All of which begs a central question What took the international community so long to confront egregious Math atrocities Which we all know have occurred long before the 20th century The destruction of carcass by the romans at the end of the third punic war in the second century before the common era And the slaughter of tens of thousands of casars of long ad hoc in southern france During the albigenzian crusade of the 13th century are about two examples of historical crimes against humanity In august of 1209 the abbot ardo al-marik reported to pope innocent assert that in the city of bezier Quote our men spared no one Irrespective of rank sex or age and put to the sword almost 20,000 people end quote This falls four square into the category of what we today call genocide Fast forward to the 19th century Fast forward to the 19th century forcible relocation of more than 16,000 native american From the southeastern part of the u.s. To western territories on brutal force marches that resulted in the deaths of between 3,000 and 6,000 members of the chericoot key nation A harbinger of the way in which between 600,000 the most conservative estimate And a million and a half armenians would be murdered by ottoman troops between 1915 and 1918 What changed in 1945 I suggest that it was in large measure the vast scope and multinational Transnational nature of the holocaust that called the transformation our collective international mindset that led to the watershed imt Followed closely thereafter by the genocide convention Unlike previous mass atrocities where the victims were localized The jewish victims of the final solution came from all across not the occupied europe And vast numbers were transported across national borders to the desk camps the germans had set up in poland To put the issue in somewhat different context The stakeholders in the search for justice during and in the immediate aftermath of the holocaust Were not con confined to a single country The soviet union france, hungary, belgium and the netherlands Were only five among many founding members of the united nation that had a deep personal interest In not allowing the nazis mass atrocities to go unpunished And there were jewish organizations The world jewish congress foremost among them that kept a similar similar pressure on the government of the us and great britain All of which lead us to our central question today What if anything have we learned in the past three quarters of the century In article one of the genocide convention the contracting parties undertake to prevent and to punish genocide After newtemberg it is implicit that the same approach should at least in theory hold true for crime against humanity generally The reality is That the international community has done an adequate if not spectacular job in the area of punishment Even though the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity in darfur syria, iraq and in all likelihood me and mar Are unlikely to sit in the dock of any tribunal anytime soon still The world war two war crimes trials in europe as well as in the far east The eichmann trials the icty and ictr Cambodius maru Trials and other tribunals have resulted in the conviction of substantial numbers of war criminals on these charges When it comes to prevention, however And here i am very much in agreement with ambassador lineman The same international community have in large measure failed to step up to the plate The very fact that genocide and crime against humanity Were allowed to occur in basnia ruanda and so many other places speak for itself There are of course multiple reason for this Still We are far from being able to congratulate ourselves on our progress in the area of genocide or mass atrocities prevention Thank you. Thank you all. I think the interesting part of this panel so far has been that All of our speakers approach this topic from a very different angle But all hone in on on the central question of this panel now before we go to questions from the audience I would like to spend a few minutes with with with one question. I wanted to raise to to our panelists Perhaps for some from brief initial insights and and it relates with the topic of of effectiveness and impact I think both ambassador lineman and and professor rosensoft they pointed out that We both have ongoing mass violence and quite likely there will be future Atrocities taking place. I think laurence Also pointed out that atrocity prevention should be seen as a goal that progress could be made towards Ms bleaker emphasized the critical element of early prevention and upstream prevention Within this field. So i would like to ask her panelist of how do we assess progress towards this goal of atrocity prevention? What does success look like in this field? Is it the end of all mass violence? Is it a reduction of of new onsets of of mass killings? Or is it a reduction of risk before the eruption of of of this violence? Some initial thoughts on that would be helpful just from where you sit from within your organizations Your institutions or how the international community can make progress towards that goal more general. So Some initial thoughts perhaps starting with laurence Sure, I think I guess I would say that we should think about it in two two different ways one The goal should and has to be ultimately The amount of mass atrocities and mass violence that goes on in the world that should be our Our north star that we're working toward to eliminate this kind of violence from the world Now we should do that with the great deal of humility about our ability to actually get there And part of that process should be trying to learn about incremental successes and progress which means that when we engage in some particular effort Be it developmental diplomatic humanitarian or otherwise That it's incumbent on those of us doing that to articulate the theory by which we Imagine that intervention will have some positive impact and ultimately reduce the risk of atrocities and then try to Even with all the complications and difficulties measure the The impacts and effects of those actions So I think it's by both the keeping our eyes on that that long term ultimate goal And being very sort of near term and and humble in our Efforts and tracking and monitoring that we might be able to make some progress Um a little bit in the same line. I would say that One of the problems prevention is that if you are successful You don't see anything because it should not happen. So that's that's a very difficult issue and You know, I think it's it's easy for it's helpful To take the analogy with public health Actually one of In order to prevent atrocities to happen you need to make All kind of different things that at first Stage you think have nothing to do with prevention, right? So It's all about strengthening rule of law. It's all about strengthening. You were speaking about Politics and political communities This is central to this issue So I think that the challenge is The invisibility of successful prevention And now when we speak about what the success looked like it looks like this heter heteronegiety of different efforts in different fields That contribute to strengthen institutions that contributes to strengthen rule of law that contributes to anchor and strengthen the deepest values that are at core of democratic systems and So these are I would say the steps that finally help us to push further down the line the danger of entering in Period that could or in in situations that could lead us towards atrocities, right? So that's a little bit the paradox of the situation. I think You know, I'm I'm afraid I'm going to be somewhat less optimistic and Let's refer back for a few minutes to einstein's famous comment that the definition of insanity Is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result Let's take a look at where we have been since 1945 We knew in 1993 Of the atrocities That were being perpetrated in bosnia Not only did we know it But ellie weasel famously turned to president clinton at the opening of the u.s. Holocaust Memorial Museum In april of 1993 and said mr. President. I cannot not tell you something. We must do something the result of course Was that in threbranica and elsewhere? We did nothing worse In threbranica, which had been set up as a safe haven the united nations troops walked away And turned over The bosniaks To the republica syrupska sucks We knew What was going to happen in ruanda? We knew what was going to happen in darfur and did nothing There were warnings And we talked and nothing the united states holocaust memorial museum had a genocide conclusion regarding the yazidis in iraq nothing the We knew in advance and know now what is happening to the rohingya Nothing so let's at least be honest with ourselves We have not Been successful for whatever reasons in preventing mass atrocities We are we have done very well in recognizing them We have done very well in making sure that people know that these are international crimes under international law That's all well and good But i will tell you that from the perspective of the individuals receiving the unwanted attentions It is very little comfort to know That there are people sitting in new york or london or bern Who basically say oh, yes, it's terrible their victims of genocide This is what happened during world war two. This is what happened During the armenian genocide so let's understand that We don't have a mechanism in place We need one but so far we have not figured out how to do it thank you for those observations I would like to invite the audience right now For for questions and that will pose to to our panelists There are my colleagues are in the back of the room. So feel free to to raise your hands and I will Draw them to your attention professor reagan bogan. We have one question there on the right I'll take three questions at a time if that's feasible And then we'll take the lady over there in the green sweater Please go ahead. Mr. Professor reagan bogan or who has the microphone. Okay. Let's start over there Hi, good morning. I want to thank all of you for sharing your insights with us today My name is victoria erntz and I'm a second-year law student at american university and a research associate at the public international law and policy group My question is for any of you that would like to respond The international law commission is working on a draft convention for crimes against humanity um war crimes and genocide conventions already exist and as All of you have pointed out these crimes continue to be committed So what kind of an impact do you think a convention on crimes against humanity will have on preventing atrocity crimes? Thank you. We're cool next to a lady over here Hi, good morning. Um, you have all discussed prevention before atrocities begin and so my question is How would you suggest the international community finds a balance between respecting independent sovereignty of nations And preventing atrocities before they begin Okay, and we'll take one more question over there in the middle Good morning. I um Am moved by the discussion and ask the question how In this community in the beltway of washington We sell humanity within the context of national security And as you've shown there are future Issues that involve the entire world in terms of how they can be threatened from migration to diseases the question what I don't understand maybe you can enlighten is why isn't there enough activity by The organizations to convince the united states as the architect of this international organization world order to pivotly commit that trade and human rights be integrated at the part of the national security interests Of not only this country, but all countries So that this indifference can become more a part of our cumulative agenda instead of The idea of this is an intervention of humanitarian services We'll take some more questions after initial uh round of responses. Perhaps we can start with you I'd like to address the first question because it's something that i'm Of miss erin's because i'm It's an it's an important question uh I'm not sure that we are in a international political climate in which a convention on crime against humanity Is likely to get approved and adopt it. I just don't think it's going to happen I also think and in retrospect In 1945 1946 There was some debate as to what was going to come out of the united nations If you look at the 1990 1946, I'm sorry, and if you look at the 1946 resolutions that set about the process for the genocide convention The resolution before it Was the resolution on the newmberg principles and but for uh rafael lemkin Pushing for a genocide convention. I think the atmospherics in 1946 1947 48 was such that at that point We could have gotten a convention criminalizing crime against humanity Basically as defined at newmberg and that would have included genocide Which probably would have left us better off Because we now have this rather False premise that genocide is a crime of crimes and therefore if you murdered Hundreds of thousands of people For a different reason other than that such low set force and genocide convention You're somehow less guilty which of course is an idiocy But to get back It's not so much that I think we're going to get a convention on the crime against humanity It's rather that I think we need to sensitize the international community That crimes against humanity As defined and they're in the rome Statute for the ICC then the ICT y and ICT r charters are every bit as heinous as genocide And let's move on but in that context. I think that's where we find ourselves We'll work our way back miss bleaker. Yes. I remember what loren said at the very beginning About the the threat that are in front of us um, I would say not to repeat what you have been saying that um, one of the paradox of developing norms and standards is that We end up with a series of norms and standards which are not implemented And I find this actually in the field Sometimes difficult It can even become dangerous sometimes because the less you implement these norms and standards You are somehow contributing or one one is contributing to lowering Their importance and their credibility and legitimacy is why it would be very prudent To go to develop new norms and standards as long as we have such difficulties to implement them That would be a very basic criteria of mine um and and then allow me to to React to what you were saying. I think we are not here Saying either we are optimistic or pessimistic I think we have to be and we ought to be extremely realistic And take somehow the legacy of All what you have said before all what we see happening now And say nevertheless And in spite of all this and we wish all that what can be done today And how can we look at that in a longer framework? We have not been talking here about the immense efforts of mediation Of diplomatic back channeling, etc. Where We could I could give a series of examples of actually tragedies that has been avoided One of them for example is a very famous case of pando In uruguay where a massacre had been taken place and the community of yuna sur The latin america countries had decided at this stage to send very quickly an investigation commission And that led to Basically the stop of forthcoming coup d'etat With all the massacres that could have been taking place After that's for example in the latin america community an example of Their capacity to intervene to prevent genocide that they are often Quoting I think these are important example. We were talking what what does success look like? I would say this is one of the success in the past But it's often not talked about in the terms of we prevented a big genocide along the road, right? But we could and I think this is one of the tasks we should develop in the prevention field is communicate About many steps that are being done that are strengthening the capacity of our society because Values are more and more enshrined And they are now in danger human rights is in danger So this is where we ought to put attention because we might Considerably weaken the whole Possible architecture for prevention to become effective When we need to act Last but not least I would like to say that it's evident for me that human rights Rule of law transitional justice and all these elements are Core in the in the field of prevention But also education also History teaching also The capacity and initiative to develop tolerance and constructive management of diversity And you may name it these are all for me and a kind of Inventory of what we would need somehow to inscribe In the to be done in the field of prevention and last but not least What I was talking about Announcing this elementary elements of a paradigm shift Is evident it is a celebration of prevention as the reaffirmation of sovereignty In all its dimension And this is why we have been talking about prevention When we were Speaking of military interventions And there I kind of joined what you are saying we have not been able to prevent We have been able sometimes to make military interventions But let's be clear Military interventions are not what we can call in general matters Prevention at the first range right so prevention Shell become Domesticated as I was saying before that's absolutely crucial in order to have Ownership and to be able to develop program therefore in turn. This is Solemn affirmation of Sovereignty to whom was asking this question and I think that the responsibility to protect is one proof of it even more just One or two comments on this question about the relationship between an atrocity prevention and national interests and how we think about that I would point you back to the genocide prevention task force from 2008 Which tries to make this case and argues that preventing genocide mass atrocities Does promote u.s national interests because of the spillover effects and second-order consequences and and so forth And I think there's a reasonable case being made there. I guess I would just add Let's not Try to force everything on to the national security argument because there may well be circumstances in which The targeting large-scale targeting of civilians in some remote place, which does not have any Inherent interest to the united states, which may be self contained Still is something that ought to cause us as a country as a government as an international Community serious concerns So we shouldn't be shy about making the case that this matters in and of itself Even as we highlight those congruences with more traditional conceptions and national interests Let's take another round of questions. I had a lady here on the third row and then we have gentlemen will fergero on the fourth row Hi, thank you all very much. It was very informative I I have a question in terms of what I'm hearing is that the approach is basically reactive And I think what's missing is maybe the proactive piece In other words, there are probably building blocks and certain environments that could be triggers or could be You know come to our attention that these may be areas of potential atrocities And maybe start at the rudimentary level rather than Waiting until the atrocity is full-blown. I think mr. Rosen Jeffs explained, you know this in in his talk And then reacting to there's an atrocity and what can we do to now Mediate or help the situation once it has already occurred so um I'm asking like I I sit on the jewish community relations council holocaust commission In maryland And this year the topic of our community commemoration is hate speech and the way it affected the holocaust And we're trying to You know say how can we take the lessons of the past just like you were saying and apply them to the future? Look around us in a global environment and where do we see hate speech and how can we get involved in an early stage? So i'm wondering in the institutions that you recommend Um, what is being done in a proactive level to teach these type of things and get involved in areas of the world? That have the type of conflict that could lead to atrocities early on Thank you. We'll go ahead. Yes, I'd like the the panel to come back to ambassador lineman's first challenge about All of you have spoken to a certain degree about an architecture of prevention regional Inter intergovernmental within the u.s government and in historical reference points But i'm wondering what is the architecture for for the political decision-making because in in in effect Budgets at a minimum when you're talking about prevention budgets Or if you're talking about reaction in response to ongoing atrocities the political calculus is what's necessary So I wondered if if each of you could address that I know in part that a lot of this work has has At the at the regional level and the inter intergovernmental level has occurred because of the lack of of political action at the top levels and that's to be commended and and but i'm wondering if you could address that both at the un the permanent five political level at the regional level and Within your within respective countries What is the political calculus and what is being done to affect that? Thank you Thank you. And then we have one final question all the way in the back row Thank you I am italian old baby boomer. So my question is linking with the gentleman About Auschwitz what the world knew? We know now that the pope and Mussolini knew about Auschwitz few Hours after the start of the assassination of the jews few hours So without the internet without twitter and facebook the world already Was able so my question is about politics because if you don't touch this issue You don't solve the problem because we had italians 700 war criminals Leased from Yugoslavia, Ethiopia and other countries No one of the italian accused of war crimes Was given a trial In Yugoslavia in Ethiopia or at least in italy Thank you Thank you, sir. I think we have questions for all three of the panelists in this last round And we'll probably conclude after this some well thoughts and answers starting with laurence perhaps Yeah, I guess let me try and speak to the last latter two questions on politics I mean, I don't think there's a simple answer I guess in a certain way It's a generic question about whatever your issue is. How do you pursue a political A political agenda to raise that issue up the priority list and to To try and promote action in particular cases And so I mean I don't have any Any sort of new ideas there. I think it's about grassroots mobilization. It's about grass tops mobilization It's about looking for key influencers You know voices who who have influence with key people within governments And and then seizing on specific opportunities of cases where people are already paying attention may have other motivations to to be engaged and be interested and And then bring in the broader atrocity prevention agenda alongside it. So, um, you know, I guess that's There there's work to be done on building that political program. Whatever it looks like Our work at the holocaust museum is I think Partly we we pursue this by trying to raise attention to ongoing mass atrocity situations and just make sure that America the American people as a whole and especially our leaders are aware of these these situations and The human toll that it takes on people to make sure we're telling the individual stories So it doesn't get lost in the in the din of things But there were at the same time and this sort of speaks a little bit to the first question We're the same time trying to spotlight the early warning signs in other cases Which are our countries or situations that are not In the front pages, but we can say Based on our analysis of past situations This country bears some of the signs to be worried about It's not yet in a full-fledged crisis But now is the time to invest some level of energy and take some actions that might Mitigate those risks. So that's um, I think the kind of approach that that we take though It's an ongoing process for sure Mr. Beaker Yes to to be very concrete I think that You know 20 years ago I don't know how many national human rights commission for example were existing right so that has been a long process In order to win these spaces and somehow to mainstream human rights policy Within national agenda. So actually I see in a very basic manner This national domestic architecture before the regional ones to be created in a very analogic manner Don't forget always. I think that for us thinking In how the engineering the public health system and it's preventing Metrology and mandates is also an interesting manner to look at it. So first of all, they're basically I do believe that you need laws for that you need law for prevention So this is how you do get to these laws is the fruit of social mobilization Is a fruit of intensive discussions between civil society and the parliament politicians, etc. So that's very important you need a you need a Vision of an architecture and prevention is something extremely concrete that you can deconstruct in a series of things to be done and programs to be To be executed and you need therefore to have a multiplicity of institutions involved That has to do with school Violent from violence at school discrimination at school. You also need all the institutions who are involved in a rule and order Or security in another context you need religious actor to come to come by and you need then once you have all these actors together with a mandate To talk about what are the indicators that in your society knowledge as being possible indicators of Parallel towards a negative spiral in a negative incremental Possibility and what are the laws That you can use in you know regarding hate speech for example incitement to be able to use them on time and with the support of steel functioning institutions So concretely, I think it goes in in these directions and I think it would be interesting for you to look at the functioning of the national Committee or prevention of genocide for example or atrocities already existing for example in some of these 12 Countries that I was quoting before in the international conference of great lake region. I do believe they have a lot to teach us About politics I I would completely follow what Lawrence is saying. I think this Mixed mobilization Between civil society and its capacity also to produce research And to suggest ways and avenues to go ahead needs Is absolutely crucial and it needs of course to get in touch with Parliamentarians and politicians who in turn have to propose legal framework This is by the way, what we will need to do. Mr. Ambassador in Switzerland, but we are already beginning to set up And one of the first efforts that we are realizing now for example is discussing with parliamentarians What is the roadmap going to be in order to get in one two or three years? To the approbation of a national strategy At our level and I'm sure that during this conversation and during this journey The majority of our discussion will turn around how to preserve actually The what would could call the democratic capital and value we have in our society And this I find Actually as I was saying before I find that in turn this is a wonderful opportunity for our society to Restrengthen and to regather around these values basically and this and this capital Well, are they As a totally non-political organization The world the world Jewish congress I will not endeavor to touch the political third rail in this particular Conversation but would like to suggest a slightly different issue Perhaps we ought to look at set our sights somewhere else And not at the exclusion of other things we're doing But rather as create a priority At the world Jewish congress over the past few years we have been dealing At great lengths with cyber hate With cyber hate incitement to violence incitement to killing Antisemitism and xenophobia generally As it is being spread on the internet in ongoing ways And to figure out how to prevent that And there we have found that Facebook and twitter Are actually quite willing to be cooperative In helping and we know that much of the Atmospherics are created On the web And for example in Germany even though it's illegal You can find all kinds of neo-nazi music that glorifies the killing of jews And the killing of muslims and the killing of roma and the killing of gays And it's illegal But unless somebody pressures Google or youtube To take it off They're not going to be inclined to take the initiative The same with other types of Hate speech and i understand they're the problem with Dealing with hate speech and incitement to Violent or incitement to killing in the context of free speech But we also know That incitement to genocide is a cause of action in the international In the genocide convention And hate speech Is something we can attack And my guess is that if we were to eliminate it or at least lessen it and create An approach on that area That in turn Would end up Dealing with what was said before Trying to get at the roots of it before it turns into A genocidal situation or a ethnic cleansing situation because Otherwise We are allowing The gubbles like indoctrination To take place except that gubbles did it through newspapers and radio And we can only shudder to think what would have happened if he had had the internet available to him so Perhaps that's an area that we should raise on our Mutual agendas because that's something we actually can attack And where we have seen on our level alone that success Not absolute, but a measured success is in fact possible I'd like to thank the embassy of switzerland and particular ambassador dahinden Simon and mod also my colleagues Emmanuel tonus for making this happen as well as ambassador lineman And please join me in thanking the panelists of today lauren switcher miss pleaker and mr rosensoft Enjoy the rest of your day